That's nonsense. Software is subject to copyright law in the EU and US.
Indeed copyright exist in EU and USA. But what can be copyrighted is very different in the ways it matters.
What’s you interpretation of
SAS v World Programming Ltd (2012) C-406/10
Question 1-5
| 45 | The Court also points out that the finding made in paragraph 39 of the present judgment cannot affect the possibility that the SAS language and the format of SAS Institute’s data files might be protected, as works, by copyright under Directive 2001/29 if they are their author’s own intellectual creation (see Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, paragraphs 44 to 46). |
| 46 | Consequently, the answer to Questions 1 to 5 is that Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive. |
Questions 6 and 7
| 61 | It must therefore be held that the copyright in a computer program cannot be infringed where, as in the present case, the lawful acquirer of the licence did not have access to the source code of the computer program to which that licence relates, but merely studied, observed and tested that program in order to reproduce its functionality in a second program. |
| 62 | In those circumstances, the answer to Questions 6 and 7 is that Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has obtained a copy of a computer program under a licence is entitled, without the authorisation of the owner of the copyright, to observe, study or test the functioning of that program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, in the case where that person carries out acts covered by that licence and acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program, and on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program. |
case
C-13/20, Top System SA v. Belgian State).
The first question
28 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting the operation of that program, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which the program forms a part.
53 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question referred is that Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part.
The second question
54 By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program who wishes to decompile that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation must satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive or other requirements.
Or
Case C‑159/23 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Datel Design and Development Ltd, Datel Direct Ltd
The first question
27. By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that the protection conferred by that directive pursuant to that provision extends to the content of the variables which the protected computer program has transferred to the RAM of the computer and uses in running it, in the situation in which another program operating at the same time as the protected computer program changes that content, without however the object code or the source code of the latter program being changed.
79. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the following answer be given to the questions for a preliminary ruling referred by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany):
Article 1(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that
the protection conferred by that directive pursuant to that provision does not extend to the content of the variables which the protected computer program has transferred to the RAM of the computer and uses in running it, in the situation in which another program operating at the same time as the protected computer program changes that content, without however the object code or the source code of the latter program being changed.
That's not what you said. You said Apple went after Cydia and lost in court. You went on to say there were multiple cases. All that was wrong.
Then I was unfortunately sloppy in my comment.
I think this actually explains a lot. If this is true in the EU (which I actually seriously doubt, but I am not an expert in EU copyright law), then of course you don't understand why we think the DMA is stealing Apple's intellectual property.
At least in my opinion, Developers don't have a right to use Apple's Intellectual Property to sell apps any more than I have a right to sell a movie set in the Star Wars universe without Disney's permission. Disney has a monopoly over the distribution of Star Wars movies, but not a monopoly over all movies. Doesn't matter that I've previously bought a Star Wars movie - that doesn't give me license to use that IP.
Well that’s the thing here we both agree, the distinction here is that the API is never in the app. It would be the equivalent of copyrighting the phone book( the function) and also trying to copyright the phone numbers and addresses listed( the APIs)
Or copyrighting the content of a book, but also trying to copyright the ability to read the text.
Same deal here - want to use Apple’s IP? Apple gets to sign off on it - the app wouldn't exist without Apple's IP. If Apple doesn't want it, or the developer doesn't want to abide by Apple's rules - too bad. The fact that the user bought the iPhone that has a copy of iOS on it doesn't mean Apple has given away its IP.
Well the issue is Apple is claiming that their IP or you and other people are making these claims, but if this is to be enforced Apple must actually provide a list of the IP and apply a FRAND agreement
If I write the next great Star Wars movie, but can’t convince Disney it’s a good, (or, I do convince them it's good but accidentally insult Bob Iger in the elevator and he kills the project), I don’t get to make it and sell it anyway….
….and not pay Disney anything because they're not doing anything. And you're all cheering the EU on saying things like "Disney makes enough money on merchandise" or "Disney is rent seeking on poor screenwriters" like that makes it ok.
Well in this scenario your right to sell the Disney franchise or to reproduce it is commercially. But there nothing Disney can do to prevent you from using the building principles of the story to make another unique story.
With the DMA the EU is saying here is “it’s not fair Disney won't distribute surferfb's Star Wars movie, so Disney has to let Warner Brothers distribute the movie, and surferfb still gets to use all the characters and locations and lightsabers etc.
And keep in mind, We don’t have fair use in EU when it comes to copyrighted content.
But Disney can’t legally prevent you as a business from purchasing( not can they deny a sale according to standard market prices) to a company that then will sell the movies in their stores. They can prevent you from showing it commercially tho as this you violating their copyright.
I don't deserve access to the Star Wars fanbase just because I want it. Developers don’t deserve access to Apple's IP just because they want it. But you seem to think in the EU they can sell their apps to consumers even if Apple said we're not allowing any apps - so maybe, in the EU they do deserve it just because they want it.
Well art is still copyrighted. And Under Article 102 of the TFUE, refusal to deal as an act of abuse of a dominance position involves two markets in one of which an undertaking with a dominant position creates or threatens to impose restrictions to competition in the other market unjustifiably.
And the only reason Apple falls under this is with their AppStore
www.computerworld.com
www.macrumors.com
